168 Conn. App. 689
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Parties divorced; their December 2013 separation agreement was incorporated into the January 8, 2014 dissolution judgment.
- Separation agreement: paragraph 2 (alimony) defined "earned income" broadly to include wages, commissions, bonuses, consulting fees and other compensation (cash and non‑cash) and set a sliding percentage alimony scheme; paragraph 5 (property) addressed division of specified financial assets and paragraph 5B addressed "AMC Restricted Stock Awards and Units," expressly including "non‑vested awards of any kind" awarded through the date of dissolution.
- Defendant (Luttinger) worked at AMC and was granted (a) restricted stock units in 2011 (vested 2014) which were treated and divided as property per ¶5B, and (b) a 2011 contingent performance award that paid out in cash in March 2014 ($222,915 gross; $140,503.33 net).
- Defendant paid the plaintiff (Nadel) a share of the cash award treating it as alimony under ¶2; plaintiff filed a postjudgment contempt motion arguing the cash award was marital property under ¶5B and she was entitled to 50% of it.
- Trial court found the cash performance award was a "non‑vested award of any kind" under ¶5B, entitled the plaintiff to one half of the net award, and awarded the plaintiff $55,728.75 (but did not hold defendant in contempt).
- On appeal the court affirmed classification of the award as property under ¶5B but reversed the money calculation and remanded to determine the proper amount (one half of net award less amounts already paid).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cash performance award is marital property under ¶5B ("non‑vested awards of any kind") or earned income/bonus under ¶2 (alimony) | ¶5B's phrase "non‑vested awards of any kind" covers awards granted during the marriage even if paid in cash; plaintiff entitled to share as property | Award is a cash "bonus"/earned income under ¶2C (¶2C expressly lists "bonuses"), so it should be treated as alimony, not property | Court: ¶5B is broad; the cash award was a non‑vested award granted during marriage and properly treated as property under ¶5B (affirmed) |
| Proper amount owed to plaintiff | Entitled to one half of the net award (net of applicable taxes) less amounts already paid to her | Court credited plaintiff's testimony that $55,728.75 was owed (but that figure equaled 25% of gross and did not reflect net‑of‑tax division) | Court: trial court's $55,728.75 calculation was clearly erroneous; correct baseline is one half of the net ($140,503.33 → $70,251.67) less any alimony already paid; remanded to determine exact balance (reversed as to amount) |
Key Cases Cited
- Eckert v. Eckert, 285 Conn. 687 (2008) (standard rules of contract interpretation apply to separation agreements)
- State v. White, 204 Conn. 410 (1987) (interpretation of the word "include" may be limiting or enlarging depending on context)
- Wesley v. Schaller Subaru, Inc., 277 Conn. 526 (2006) (contract construction avoids rendering language superfluous)
- Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Sullivan, 161 Conn. 145 (1971) (discussion of "shall include" as term of limitation or enlargement)
- Considine v. Waterbury, 279 Conn. 830 (2006) (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings on appeal)
- Isham v. Isham, 292 Conn. 170 (2009) (courts need not consult extrinsic evidence when contract language is clear; but may examine extrinsic evidence to identify the nature of a payment)